DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-3 and 4, filed 02/13/20205, with respect to the 102 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 16 under Williams and the 103 rejection of claim 10 under Fowler in view of Allen have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner agrees that Williams fails to disclose or suggest “a first profiled surface extending…from a laterally outer surface of the first flange to a laterally inner upper edge of the first flange to extend across a majority of a lateral dimension of the first flange” as required by claim 1 and “a first profiled surface that…extends at an angle from a laterally outer surface of the first flange across a lateral midline of the first flange to a laterally inner and upper edge of the first flange as required by claim 16. The examiner further notes that the amendment to claim 10 to further define “a first profiled edge extending from a laterally outer surface of the first flange to a laterally inner upper edge of the first flange to extend across a majority of a lateral dimension of the first flange” overcomes the previous interpretation of Fowler. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new interpretation of the Fowler reference.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 19 recites “The medical device of claim 16, wherein the first profiled surface defines two edges extending substantially axially along the first flange when the first jaw is in the closed position, the two edges located radially inward of the outer surface of the outer tube when the first jaw is in the closed position”. In the instant application, the two edges are referred to as “edges” or “chamfers” without a point of reference in the drawings nor further description as to where the two edges of the first profiled surface are located. Para. 00414 of the instant application states “the chamfers 2110a and 2110b can define edges extending substantially axially along the flanges 2020 when the jaws 2010 and 2012 are in the closed position. The edges (chamfers 2110) can be located laterally inward (or radially inward, in some examples) of the outer surface 2106 of the outer tube 2028”. Therefore, the two edges of the first profiled surface must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fowler (US 20070021777).
Regarding claim 1, Fowler discloses a forceps 10 (Figs. 1A-B, para. 0048) comprising:
a drive pin 75 (Fig. 2A, para. 0054);
an outer tube 65 extending along a longitudinal axis (Figs. 1A-B, 2A, para. 0053);
a first jaw 23A pivotably connected to the outer tube 65 (Figs. 2A-3, para. 0053), the first jaw including a first flange 27A (Fig. 4, para. 0050) located at a proximal portion of the first jaw 23A (Figs. 2A-4, para. 0050, 0052), the first flange including a first profiled surface extending at a nonzero angle from a laterally outer surface of the first flange to a laterally inner upper edge of the first flange to extend across a majority of a lateral dimension of the first flange (see annotated Fig. 4 [a] below, para. 0050, 0052), the first profiled surface configured to limit extension of the first flange laterally beyond an outer surface of the outer tube when the first jaw is in a closed position (see note below), wherein the first profiled surface is flat (see annotated Fig. 4 of Fowler below; Note: Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, “flat” is defined as “having a relatively smooth or even surface” (see attached Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of flat). Annotated Fig. 4 of Fowler below illustrates the first profiled surface having a relatively smooth or even surface without any grooves or indentations. Therefore, the first profiled edge of Fowler is flat and meets the claim limitation of claim 1);
a second jaw 23B connected to the outer tube 65 (Figs. 2A-4, para. 0052-0054); and
an inner shaft 63 located within the outer tube 65 and extending along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3, para. 0053), the inner shaft 63 connected to the first flange 27A, via the drive pin 75 (Figs. 2A-4, para. 0052-0054), the inner shaft 63 translatable along the outer tube 65 to drive the drive pin 75 and the first flange 27A to move the first jaw 23A between an open position and the closed position (Figs. 2-4, para. 0053-0054).
Note: “the first profiled surface configured to limit extension of the first flange laterally beyond an outer surface of the outer tube” is interpreted as functional language, therefore the limitation is not interpreted as a structural component of the claimed invention, but interpreted as a functional component that the claimed invention is capable of doing. For example, Fowler discloses the first profiled surface extending at the nonzero angle from the laterally outer surface of the first flange to the laterally inner upper edge of the first flange to extend across the majority of the lateral dimension of the first flange (see annotated Fig. 4 [a] below. Since, the device of Fowler meets the structural limitation of the claim, the device of Fowler also meets the functional limitation. The examiner further notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention and/or functionality of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
239
240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Fowler
PNG
media_image2.png
270
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 [a] of Fowler
Regarding claim 16, Fowler discloses a forceps 10 (Figs. 1A-B, para. 0048) comprising:
a drive pin 75 (Fig. 2A, para. 0054);
an outer tube 65 extending along a longitudinal axis (Figs. 1A-B, 2A, para. 0053);
a first jaw 23A pivotably connected to the outer tube 65 (Figs. 2A-3, para. 0053), the first jaw including a first flange 27A (Fig. 4, para. 0050) located at a proximal portion of the first jaw 23A (Figs. 2A-4, para. 0050, 0052), the first flange including a first profiled surface that is planar (Note: Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, planar is defined as “of, relating to, or lying in a plane”. Annotated Fig. 4 of Fowler above illustrates the first profiled surface is related to a tangential plane defined by an edge of the first profiled surface. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the first profiled surface meets the claim limitation of claim 16) and extends at an angle from a laterally outer surface of the first flange to a laterally inner upper edge of the first flange to extend across a lateral midline of the first flange (see annotated Figs. 4 above and 4 [b] below, para. 0050, 0052).
a second jaw 23B connected to the outer tube 65 (Figs. 2A-4, para. 0052-0054); and
an inner shaft 63 located within the outer tube 65 and extending along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3, para. 0053), the inner shaft 63 connected to the first flange 27A, via the drive pin 75 (Figs. 2A-4, para. 0052-0054), the inner shaft 63 translatable along the outer tube 65 to drive the drive pin 75 and the first flange 27A to move the first jaw 23A between an open position and the closed position (Figs. 2-4, para. 0053-0054).
PNG
media_image3.png
270
246
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 [b] of Fowler
Regarding claim 7, Fowler discloses wherein the second jaw 23B is pivotably connected to the outer tube 65 (Figs. 2A-4, para. 0052-0054 of Fowler).
Regarding claim 8, Fowler discloses wherein the profiled surface is a chamfer or a bevel (see annotated Fig. 4 of Fowler above which illustrates the profiled surface as a surface formed from an angled cut).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Fowler discloses wherein the first profiled surface is angled radially inward as the profiled surface extends from an axially distal location to an axially proximal location (see annotated Fig. 4 of Fowler above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 10-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler (US 20070021777), as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Allen et al. (US 20130296848) [hereinafter Allen].
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Fowler discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claims 1 and 16. Regarding claim 17, Fowler further discloses the first profiled surface configured to limit extension of the first flange laterally beyond an outer surface of the outer tube when the first jaw is in a closed position (see note below). However, Fowler fails to disclose wherein the first jaw includes a second flange located at the proximal portion of the first jaw, the second flange including a second profiled surface configured to limit extension of the second flange laterally beyond the outer surface of the outer tube when the first jaw is in the closed position (see note below).
Note: “the first profiled surface configured to limit extension of the first flange laterally beyond an outer surface of the outer tube” is interpreted as functional language, therefore the limitation is not interpreted as a structural component of the claimed invention, but interpreted as a functional component that the claimed invention is capable of doing. For example, Fowler discloses the first profiled surface extending at the angle from the laterally outer surface of the first flange across a lateral midline of the first flange to the laterally inner upper edge of the first flange (see annotated Figs. 4 and 4 [C] above). Since, the device of Fowler meets the structural limitation of the claim, the device of Fowler also meets the functional limitation. The examiner further notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention and/or functionality of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Allen in the same field of endeavor teaches forceps 10 (Fig. 1) comprising double flanged jaws (30, 32) (Fig. 3, para. 0050), wherein a first jaw 30 includes first and second flanges (30a, 30b) located at a proximal portion of the first jaw (Figs. 3, 10, para. 0058) and a second jaw 32 includes third and fourth flanges (32a, 32b) arranged in a nested configuration and located at a proximal portion of the second jaw (Figs. 3, 10, para. 0058, 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second jaws having single flanges in Fowler to include the double/dual flanges; wherein the flanges of the second jaw are arranged in the nested configuration with respect to the first jaw, as taught by Allen, since Allen teaches that providing the jaws with the double flange configuration would allow additional constraints between the two jaws such that lateral movement between the sets of flanges is reduced (see Fig. 14, para. 0082 of Allen). The modification would achieve the predicable result of allowing the flanges of the first jaw to suitably nest with the flanges of the second jaw such that the ability to simultaneously actuate the jaws relative to one another is maintained (see Figs. 10, 14, para. 0069, 0082 of Allen).
Note: The combination of Fowler in view of Allen would result in a product wherein the second flange includes a second profiled surface as disclosed in Fowler (see annotated Fig. 4 of Fowler above, para. 0050, 0052) since the modification is a duplication of the single flange (Allen teaches two flanged jaws, as opposed to one, para. 0050, 0058, 0078) such that the first jaw of Fowler comprise a first and second flange. Since the second flange would have the same structure as the first, the second flange would also be configured to limit extension of the second flange laterally beyond the outer surface of the outer tube when the first jaw is in the closed position (see note above in claim 1 which discusses the interpretation of “configured to” and functional language).
Regarding claim 10, Fowler discloses a forceps 10 (Figs. 1A-B, para. 0048) comprising:
a drive pin 75 (Fig. 2A, para. 0054);
an outer tube 65 extending along a longitudinal axis (Figs. 1A-B, 2A, para. 0053);
a first jaw 23A connected to the outer tube 65 (Figs. 2A-3, para. 0053), the first jaw including a first flange 27A (Fig. 4, para. 0050) located at a proximal portion of the first jaw 23A (Figs. 2A-4, para. 0050, 0052), the first flange 23A including a first profiled edge extending from a laterally outer surface of the first flange to a laterally inner upper edge of the first flange to extend across a majority of a lateral dimension of the first flange, (see annotated Figs. 4 [a] above and 4 [c] below), such that the laterally outer surface is shorter than a laterally inner surface (see annotated Fig. 4 [d] below), the first profiled edge configured to limit extension of the first flange laterally beyond an outer surface of the outer tube (see note below); a second jaw 23B pivotably connected to the outer tube 65 (Figs. 2A-4, para. 0052-0054), wherein the first profiled edge is flat (Note: Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, “flat” is defined as “having a relatively smooth or even surface” (see attached Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of flat). Annotated Fig. 4[c] of Fowler below illustrates the first profiled edge having a relatively smooth or even surface without any grooves or indentations. Therefore, the first profiled edge of Fowler is flat and meets the claim limitation of claim 10); and
an inner shaft 63 located within the outer tube 65 and extending along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3, para. 0053), the inner shaft 63 connected to the first flange 27A, via the drive pin 75 (Figs. 2A-4, para. 0052-0054), the inner shaft 63 translatable along the outer tube 65 to drive the drive pin 75 to move the second jaw 23B between open and closed positions (Figs. 2-4, para. 0053-0054).
However, Fowler fails to disclose the first jaw including a first flange and a second flange.
Allen in the same field of endeavor teaches forceps 10 (Fig. 1) comprising double flanged jaws (30, 32) (Fig. 3, para. 0050), wherein a first jaw 30 includes first and second flanges (30a, 30b) located at a proximal portion of the first jaw (Figs. 3, 10, para. 0058) and a second jaw 32 includes third and fourth flanges (32a, 32b) arranged in a nested configuration and located at a proximal portion of the second jaw (Figs. 3, 10, para. 0058, 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second jaws having single flanges in Fowler to include the double/dual flanges; wherein the flanges of the second jaw are arranged in the nested configuration with respect to the first jaw, as taught by Allen, since Allen teaches that providing the jaws with the double flange configuration would allow additional constraints between the two jaws such that lateral movement between the sets of flanges is reduced (see Fig. 14, para. 0082 of Allen). The modification would achieve the predicable result of allowing the flanges of the first jaw to suitably nest with the flanges of the second jaw such that the ability to simultaneously actuate the jaws relative to one another is maintained (see Figs. 10, 14, para. 0069, 0082 of Allen).
Note: “the first profiled edge configured to limit extension of the first flange laterally beyond an outer surface of the outer tube” is interpreted as functional language, therefore the limitation is not interpreted as a structural component of the claimed invention, but interpreted as a functional component that the claimed invention is capable of doing. For example, Fowler discloses the first profiled edge extending from a laterally outer surface of the first flange to a laterally inner edge and upper edge of the first flange (see annotated Fig. 4[c] below) to extend across a majority of a lateral dimension of the first flange (see annotated Fig. 4 [a] above), such that the laterally outer surface is shorter than a laterally inner surface (see annotated Fig. 4[d] below). Since, the device of Modified Fowler meets the structural limitation of the claim, the device of Modified Fowler also meets the functional limitation. The examiner further notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention and/or functionality of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image4.png
257
272
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4[c] of Fowler
PNG
media_image5.png
262
278
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4[d] of Fowler
Regarding claim 11, Modified Fowler discloses wherein the first jaw 30 includes a second flange 32b located at the proximal portion of the first jaw (Figs. 3, 10, para. 0058 of Allen), the second flange including a second profiled surface (see Figs. 4[c]-[d] of Fowler above) configured to limit extension of the second flange laterally beyond the outer surface of the outer tube when the first jaw is in the closed position (see note above regarding “configured to” language).
Regarding claim 18, modified Fowler discloses wherein each of the first flange and the second flange include a first track 47 receiving the drive pin 75 at least partially therein (Figs. 2A-4, para. 0054 of Fowler).
Claim(s) 3-6, 12-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowler (US 20070021777) in view of Allen et al. (US 20130296848), as applied to claims 2, 13, and 16 above, and in further view of Williams et al. (US 20190015124) [hereinafter Williams].
Regarding claim 3, modified Fowler discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 2. Modified Fowler further discloses wherein the first flange and the second flange each include a proximal portion extending laterally outward of the outer tube when the jaws are in the open position (Fig. 2A, para. 0048, 0050 of Fowler; Figs. 2A, 6, para. 0055, 0073-0074 of Allen), the proximal portions having a rectangular profile 51 (Fig. 4, para. 0052 of Fowler), the first profiled surface and the second profiled surface intersecting the rectangular profile 51 (see annotated Fig. 4 of Fowler above which illustrates the first profiled surface curving into the profile 51, that curve defining the non-zero angle).
However, modified Fowler fails to disclose the proximal portions having an oval profile.
Williams in the same field of endeavor teaches a forceps comprising a first flange 32 and a second flange 34, each flange including a proximal portion extending laterally outward of an outer tube 54 when jaws 20, 22 are in an open position (Fig. 2), the proximal portions having an oval profile (best shown in Fig. 3 of Williams, para. 0013) as a known flange shape in the art.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the shape of the profiles of the first flange and the second flange of Fowler to include the oval shape as taught by Williams, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 4, modified Fowler discloses wherein the second jaw includes a third flange and a fourth flange, each located at a proximal portion of the second jaw (see rejection of claim 2 above which modified the single flange of the second jaw to have dual flanges each located at the proximal portion of the second jaw as taught by Allen).
Regarding claim 5, modified Fowler discloses wherein the first flange and the second flange 32a, 32b are positioned laterally outward of the third flange and the fourth flange 30a, 30b (Figs. 10, 14 of Allen).
Regarding claim 6, modified Fowler discloses wherein the third flange and the fourth flange include a third profiled surface and a fourth profiled surface (Note: The combination of Fowler in view of Allen and Williams would result in a product wherein the third and fourth flange includes a second profiled surface as disclosed in Fowler (see annotated Fig. 4 of Fowler above, para. 0050, 0052) since the modification is a duplication of the single flange (Allen teaches two flanged jaws, as opposed to one, para. 0050, 0058, 0078) such that the second jaw of Fowler comprise a third and fourth flange. Since the second flange would have the same structure as the first, the second flange would also be configured to limit extension of the second flange laterally beyond the outer surface of the outer tube when the first jaw is in the closed position (see note above in claim 1 which discusses the interpretation of “configured to” and functional language).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Fowler discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 11. Modified Fowler further discloses wherein the first flange and the second flange each include a proximal portion extending laterally outward of the outer tube when the jaws are in the open position (Fig. 2A, para. 0048, 0050 of Fowler), the proximal portions having a rounded rectangular profile 51 (best shown in Figs. 2A-B, 4 of Fowler), the first profiled surface and the second profiled surface intersecting the rounded rectangular profile 51 (see annotated Fig. 4 of Fowler above which illustrates the profiled surface of the profiled edge intersecting the rounded rectangular profile). However, Modified Fowler fails to disclose the proximal portions having an oval profile.
Williams in the same field of endeavor teaches a forceps comprising a first flange 32 and a second flange 34, each flange including a proximal portion extending laterally outward of an outer tube 54 when jaws 20, 22 are in an open position (Fig. 2), the proximal portions having an oval profile (best shown in Fig. 3 of Williams, para. 0013) as a known flange shape in the art.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the shape of the profiles of the first flange and the second flange of modified Fowler to include the oval shape as taught by Williams, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 13, modified Fowler discloses wherein each of the first flange and the second flange include a first track 47 receiving the drive pin 75 at least partially therein (Figs. 2A-4, para. 0054 of Fowler).Regarding claim 14, modified Fowler discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 13. Modified Fowler further discloses wherein the inner shaft 63 comprises an arm 63A extending from a distal portion of the inner shaft 63 (Fig. 3, para. 0053 of Fowler), the drive pin 75 securable directly to the arm (Fig. 3, para. 0053 of Fowler), and the inner shaft 63 translatable with respect to the outer tube 65 to drive the drive pin 75 to move the second jaw 23B between the open and closed positions (Figs. 2A-B, para. 0053-0055 of Fowler).
However, Modified Fowler fails to disclose that the inner shaft comprises a pair of arms.
Williams in the same field of endeavor teaches a forceps comprising a first flange 32 and a second flange 34 comprising a first track 40, 42 receiving a drive pin 62 at least partially therein (Fig. 3, para. 0013 of Williams), wherein an inner shaft 56 comprises a pair of arms 60 extending from a distal portion of the inner shaft (Fig. 3, para. 0013 of Williams), the drive pin 62 securable directly to the pair of arms (Fig. 3, para. 0013 of Williams), and the inner shaft 56 translatable with respect to the outer tube 54 to drive the drive pin 62 to move the second jaw between open and closed positions (para. 0013 of Williams).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the inner shaft comprising one arm in Modified Fowler to include the inner shaft comprising a pair of arms of Williams in order to efficiently supports the dual flanges of the jaws during pivotable movements of the jaws (para. 0013 of Williams).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Fowler discloses wherein the first profiled edge is located with respect to the first track 47 of the first flange 27A to extend a thickness of the first flange 27A adjacent (or nearby) a distal termination of the respective tracks (see note below) [Note: Under broadest reasonable interpretation, “adjacent” is defined as “not distant” or “nearby” (see attached Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition). Fowler illustrates the first profiled edge located at a proximal end of the first flange which is “nearby” the distal termination of the respective tracks 47 (see Fig. 4 and annotated Fig. 4[A] of Fowler above, para. 0052, 0054 of Fowler)
Regarding claim 19, modified Fowler discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 16. Modified Fowler further discloses wherein the first profiled surface defines two edges extending substantially axially along the first flange when the first jaw is in the closed position (see annotated Fig. 4 [e] below, Figs. 2B-3, para. 0048, 0050 of Fowler). However, modified Fowler fails to disclose that the two edges are located radially inward of the outer surface of the outer tube when the first jaw is in the closed position.
Williams further teaches a first flange 34 located at a proximal portion of a first jaw 22 (Figs. 2-3, para. 0013), the first flange 34 includes a first profiled surface extending at an angle from a laterally outer surface of the first flange 32 to a laterally inner upper edge of the first flange (see annotated Fig. 5 below), wherein the first profiled surface defines two edges extending substantially axially along the first flange when the first jaw is in the closed position (see Figs. 4, and annotated Fig. 5 of Williams below, para. 0012-0013), the two edges located radially inward of the outer surface of the outer tube when the first jaw is in the closed position (see annotated Fig. 5 [a] of Williams below) as opposed to an open position as shown in Fig. 2 of Williams.
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Williams to the device of Fowler would have yielded predicable results, namely, a device where the profiled surface of Fowler remains within the space defined by the outer surface of the outer tube when in the closed position, such that the two edges of the profiled surface is located radially inward of the outer surface of the outer tube as opposed to an open position as shown in Fig. 2 of Williams (see annotated Fig. 5 [a] of Williams below, para. 0012-0013); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
.
PNG
media_image6.png
239
251
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 [a] of Fowler
PNG
media_image7.png
309
568
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Williams
PNG
media_image8.png
275
277
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 [a] of Williams
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN DUBOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-8792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston can be reached on 571-272-7134. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN DUBOSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/KATHERINE H SCHWIKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771